Roger D. White

Part 8: Adult Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care

The goal of therapy for bradycardia or tachycardia is to rapidly identify and treat patients who are hemodynamically unstable or symptomatic due to the arrhythmia. Drugs or, when appropriate, pacing may be used to control unstable or symptomatic bradycardia. Cardioversion or drugs or both may be used to control unstable or symptomatic tachycardia. ACLS providers should closely monitor stable patients pending expert consultation and should be prepared to aggressively treat those with evidence of decompensation.

Part 7: Adult Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care

Basic life support (BLS), advanced cardiovascular life support (ACLS), and post–cardiac arrest care are labels of convenience that each describe a set of skills and knowledge that are applied sequentially during the treatment of patients who have a cardiac arrest. There is overlap as each stage of care progresses to the next, but generally ACLS comprises the level of care between BLS and post–cardiac arrest care. ACLS training is recommended for advanced providers of both prehospital and in-hospital medical care. In the past, much of the data regarding resuscitation was gathered from out-of-hospital arrests, but in recent years, data have also been collected from in-hospital arrests, allowing for a comparison of cardiac arrest and resuscitation in these 2 settings. While there are many similarities, there are also some differences between in- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest etiology, which may lead to changes in recommended resuscitation treatment or in sequencing of care. The consideration of steroid administration for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) versus out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is one such example discussed in this Part. The recommendations in this 2015 American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) are based on an extensive evidence review process that was begun by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) after the publication of the ILCOR 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations 1 and was completed in February 2015.2 In this in-depth evidence review process, the ILCOR task forces examined topics and then generated prioritized lists of questions for systematic review. Questions were first formulated in PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) format,3 and then a search strategy and inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined and a search for relevant articles was performed. The evidence was evaluated by using …

Hands-Only (Compression-Only) Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Call to Action for Bystander Response to Adults Who Experience Out-of-Hospital Sudden Cardiac Arrest. A Science Advisory for the Public From the American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee

Bystanders who witness the sudden collapse of an adult should activate the emergency medical services (EMS) system and provide high-quality chest compressions by pushing hard and fast in the middle of the victim’s chest, with minimal interruptions. This recommendation is based on evaluation of recent scientific studies and consensus of the American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) Committee. This science advisory is published to amend and clarify the “2005 American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC)” for bystanders who witness an adult out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest. Ten years ago, the AHA commissioned a working group of resuscitation scientists to reappraise the Association’s inclusion of ventilations in the recommended sequence for bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The working group evaluated peer-reviewed reports of laboratory and human research and summarized their findings in a 1997 statement.1 The key conclusion of that statement was that “Current guidelines for performing mouth-to-mouth ventilation during CPR should not be changed at this time.”1 In the animal studies cited in the 1997 statement, when ventricular fibrillation arrest was of short (under 6 minutes) duration, the addition of rescue ventilations to chest compressions did not improve outcome compared with chest compressions alone (LOE 6*).2–8 Analysis of human data from a national out-of-hospital CPR registry documented no survival advantage to ventilations plus compressions compared with the provision of chest compressions alone during bystander resuscitation (LOE 4*).9,10 Although these studies were not deemed sufficient to justify the elimination of ventilations from the bystander CPR sequence, the 1997 statement strongly encouraged further research that would focus on “… the timing, rate, and depth [of ventilations] as well as conditions under which respiratory assistance should be used .” The statement also recommended “… more research on real-world obstacles to learning, remembering, …

Seven years' experience with early defibrillation by police and paramedics in an emergency medical services system.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE To assess the outcome of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with ventricular fibrillation as the presenting rhythm in an emergency medical services system utilizing a combined police/paramedic response to provide early defibrillation. MATERIALS AND METHODS Police and paramedics were dispatched from law enforcement and ambulance communications centers, respectively. First-arriving personnel delivered initial shocks, all using automated external defibrillators. Patients were classified according to response to initial shocks: restoration of pulses with shocks only or in need of advanced life support, including epinephrine. Discharge survival was defined as return to home without disabling neurologic injury. RESULTS Over the 7-year period of study 131 patients presented with ventricular fibrillation: 58 were first treated by police and 73 by paramedics. Restoration of pulses with shocks only and discharge survival were not different in police and paramedic groups, with overall survival of 40% (53 of 131 patients). Among the survivors, 19% (18/95 patients) obtained a spontaneous circulation only after administration of epinephrine and other ALS interventions. CONCLUSION Both restoration of a functional circulation, without need for advanced life support interventions, and discharge survival without neurologic disability are very dependent upon the rapidity with which defibrillation is accomplished, regardless of who delivers the shocks. In addition, a smaller but significant number of patients who require ALS interventions, including epinephrine, for restoration of a spontaneous circulation survive to discharge. Short time differences, on the order of 1 min, are significant determinants of both immediate response to shocks and discharge survival.

Predictors of neurologic outcome in hypothermia after cardiac arrest.

To evaluate the predictive value of neurologic prognostic indicators for patients treated with hypothermia after surviving cardiopulmonary arrest.

Home use of automated external defibrillators for sudden cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND The most common location of out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest is the home, a situation in which emergency medical services are challenged to provide timely care. Consequently, home use of an automated external defibrillator (AED) might offer an opportunity to improve survival for patients at risk. METHODS We randomly assigned 7001 patients with previous anterior-wall myocardial infarction who were not candidates for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator to receive one of two responses to sudden cardiac arrest occurring at home: either the control response (calling emergency medical services and performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR]) or the use of an AED, followed by calling emergency medical services and performing CPR. The primary outcome was death from any cause. RESULTS The median age of the patients was 62 years; 17% were women. The median follow-up was 37.3 months. Overall, 450 patients died: 228 of 3506 patients (6.5%) in the control group and 222 of 3495 patients (6.4%) in the AED group (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.17; P=0.77). Mortality did not differ significantly in major prespecified subgroups. Only 160 deaths (35.6%) were considered to be from sudden cardiac arrest from tachyarrhythmia. Of these deaths, 117 occurred at home; 58 at-home events were witnessed. AEDs were used in 32 patients. Of these patients, 14 received an appropriate shock, and 4 survived to hospital discharge. There were no documented inappropriate shocks. CONCLUSIONS For survivors of anterior-wall myocardial infarction who were not candidates for implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator, access to a home AED did not significantly improve overall survival, as compared with reliance on conventional resuscitation methods. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047411 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Part 6: Electrical therapies: Automated external defibrillators, defibrillation, cardioversion, and pacing: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care

The recommendations for electrical therapies described in this section are designed to improve survival from SCA and life-threatening arrhythmias. Whenever defibrillation is attempted, rescuers must coordinate high-quality CPR with defibrillation to minimize interruptions in chest compressions and to ensure immediate resumption of chest compressions after shock delivery. The high first-shock efficacy of newer biphasic defibrillators led to the recommendation of single shocks plus immediate CPR instead of 3-shock sequences that were recommended prior to 2005 to treat VF. Further data are needed to refine recommendations for energy levels for defibrillation and cardioversion using biphasic waveforms.

Potential Cost-effectiveness of Public Access Defibrillation in the United States

BACKGROUND Approximately 360,000 Americans experience sudden cardiac arrest each year; current treatments are expensive and not very effective. Public access defibrillation (PAD) is a novel treatment for out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest that refers to use of automated external defibrillators by the lay public or by nonmedical personnel such as police. A clinical trial has been proposed to evaluate the effectiveness of public access defibrillation, but it is unclear whether such early defibrillation will offer sufficient value for money. Our objective was to estimate the potential cost-effectiveness of public access defibrillation by use of decision analysis. METHODS AND RESULTS A decision model compared the potential cost-effectiveness of standard emergency medical services (EMS) systems with that of EMS supplemented by PAD. We considered defibrillation by lay responders or police, using an analysis with a US health-care perspective. Input data were derived from published data or fiscal databases. Future costs and effects were discounted at 3%. Monte Carlo simulation was performed to estimate the variability in the costs and effects of each program. Sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the results to changes in input data. A standard EMS system had a median cost of

Continuous EEG in therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest: Prognostic and clinical value

5900 per cardiac arrest patient (interquartile range, IQR,

Early defibrillation by police : initial experience with measurement of critical time intervals and patient outcome

3200 to